BPE news and information

swerve

Super Moderator
Its interesting to note that the Italians eliminated the well deck from the original multi-purpose Cavour design.

Comparing and contrasting the Cavour with the new spanish LHD is an interesting excercise.
Indeed it is. Very different ships, even though not much different in size, & built to meet what at one time looked like a similar requirement. It looks to me as if the MMI did all they could to reduce the amphibious, & increase the aviation, potential of Cavour.

Italy has an even smaller & older dedicated Harrier-carrier than Spain, & three ships already in service with well decks (though they're pretty small). Perhaps this influenced them towards a more aviation-oriented ship. There's also the matter Santi brought up, of the large Spanish marine corps: Italy has a much smaller marine force, having traditionally concentrated on marine commandos, elite raiders. Perhaps another factor influencing thinking.

There's talk of the MMI getting another, larger, LPD or maybe LHD. Money is, as always, a factor, but it seems possible that a little creative accounting may occur. Perhaps the MMI didn't want to jeopardise future amphibious assets by buying a multi-role ship.

I'm not saying any of these is the, or even an, answer, I'm merely putting them forward as speculations.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I agree completely but I'm not sure the government will.

Another example of how this can cause problems was the deployment of HMAS Anzac to GW2 without a CIWS fitted (it had space and weight for Phalanx). This had the potential, IMO, to lead to disaster. Fortunately Anzac was not subject to air or missile attack as its 8 Sparrow SAMs would have been expended very quickly. Naval ships invariably have to fight with what they have not what they are capable of carrying!

A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.

Cheers
Given the quoted unit cost of 300m, built in Spain to their spec, there would appear to be scope in the allocated budget for a comprehensive fit. This would be particualry true if we take the most cost effective option an build the hulls and basic systems in spain.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Given the quoted unit cost of 300m, built in Spain to their spec, there would appear to be scope in the allocated budget for a comprehensive fit. This would be particualry true if we take the most cost effective option an build the hulls and basic systems in spain.
Let me get this straight - the budget for these ships is AUD 2 billion? At todays exchange rate, 300 mn Euros is AUD 487 mn. That leaves half the budget for extras, which is a hell of a lot. That should cover ESSM, RAM, or whatever you like, CIWS if you want, landing craft, & plenty more. Just about anything you might want to fit on such ships, in fact.

BTW, Mistral & Tonnerre cost 560 mn Euros the pair. A touch less, but we all know comparisons are unreliable unless you know exactly what's included in the price. [edit] - not meant to divert this to full-on discussion of the Australian amphibs deal - please!
 

VGNTMH

New Member
LHD Self Defence Capability

A 27,000 ship carrying 1000 troops deserves a credible self defence capability. IMO, this should include ESSM and a modern decoy system such as Nulka.
The LHD should have at least ESSM and a decoy system!

Also probably:
* A proper fire control system for the ESSM, such as CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/the Saab combat data system fitted on the ANZACs.
* Some form of defence against small craft, such as 25mm Typhoons and even possibly a larger gun, such as a 57mm or 76mm.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The LHD should have at least ESSM and a decoy system!

Also probably:
* A proper fire control system for the ESSM, such as CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/the Saab combat data system fitted on the ANZACs.
* Some form of defence against small craft, such as 25mm Typhoons and even possibly a larger gun, such as a 57mm or 76mm.
I wouldn't count on it though. I suspect the LHD's will have Typhoon 25mm guns OR "mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns and whatever CIWS system is chosen for AWD and the ANZAC upgrade and MAYBE a SAM based system. Cost I'd imagine (as usual) is the biggest factor here and I suspect RAM or Mistral would be much cheaper than ESSM, though less capable obviously...

Rumours are, that the "millenium" gun has been chosen as RAN's next gen CIWS...
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Let me get this straight - the budget for these ships is AUD 2 billion? At todays exchange rate, 300 mn Euros is AUD 487 mn. That leaves half the budget for extras, which is a hell of a lot. That should cover ESSM, RAM, or whatever you like, CIWS if you want, landing craft, & plenty more. Just about anything you might want to fit on such ships, in fact.

BTW, Mistral & Tonnerre cost 560 mn Euros the pair. A touch less, but we all know comparisons are unreliable unless you know exactly what's included in the price. [edit] - not meant to divert this to full-on discussion of the Australian amphibs deal - please!
Correct, however the budget will include training, intial spares and support and associated systems as well air and troop support facilites and equipement to be carried on the vessel. If we do not blow a large portion of this trying to build the hulls in Australia there does not seem to be any reason they could not have a comprehensive fit.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Thats cool, a very capable system. I would still like to see ESSM on the BPE as well.
As would I, though I'd like the money to be spent on making the ship as capable as possible in it's role first, and if sufficient mone exists within the project budget, then fine, get ESSM too.

A weapons fit of ESSM, Typhoon/mini-Typhoon, multiple Millenium guns, Nulka, plus the small arms component and necessary combat system, radar/sensor/ESM fit etc would make the LHD very capable of "looking after" itself...
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Rumours are, that the "millenium" gun has been chosen as RAN's next gen CIWS...
I think that this would be a great choice to back up ESSM on the LHDs. From what I can read it would be an extremely effective weapon against small craft as well as providing last ditch defence against missiles.

Cheers
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?
i'd think that any non intrusive system has a better chance of getting in - esp as we have this tendency to build to a retrofit capability in recent times.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Is there even room for ESSM on the BPE? I think CIWS like RAM combined with 20mms are optimal fits for amphibious ships, which always operates with escorts for 'that other stuff' anyway.

Another question, is the BPE being built to military spec or civilian spec?
ESSM is allowed for in the design.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FTArmamento.asp?SecAct=050203

My understanding when the new amphibious ships for Australia were first being discussed was that they would be built to civil rather than military standards. However I can find no references to this on the Navantia site. Global Security.com reports that the Mistral will be built to civil standards so I presume the BPE will be similar.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm

Cheers
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #53
Im not a big fan of things like ESSM being fitted. These should be part of the duty of its escorts.

CIWS and RAM are understandable, ships in small navies need some sort of air defence. But when you start loading anti shipping missiles things are heading the wrong way. Next it will be torpedos, SM-2, etc. Then you have a ship so cluttered that its amphibious ops etc are compromised as is its flexability. Maybe thats not the case, maybe ESSM can easily be accomodated and for minimal cost, but my fear is the RAN is trying to get the BPE to do too much. We know the ADF can get carried away when specing things.

Anti shipping should be handled by its escorts or by its aircraft. This is a ship that should be escorted.

Just some sort of Air defence against missiles/aircraft and decoy.

Im not saying penny pinch, I'm saying instead of putting essm and all the other goodies on it, use that money to go for the fourth destroyer. Or F-35B's. Why shoot missiles when they are flying at you in the air, when you can destroy them on land or at sea before they are fired.

Regarding PdA I heard it got into trouble off the coast of Canada during the Cod wars and needed assistance (from Canada?). I'm not sure of the details, can anyone confirm? I think generally the PdA is a good ship for all sea states. But a ship like that is extremely vunerable if a lift packs in and in very heavy seas, it sits lower to the water than alot of other amphibious/carriers.
I think the cavour would have to be very careful operating outside of the mediterain with those huge deck edge lifts. BPE seems to extremely well protected from the seas, which is one of the reasons Australia is interested as it would be entirely suitable for either the pacific or Indian oceans where seas are bigger, and distances longer.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Ya I knew Mistral was, not sure about BPE. BPE appears to be a combination, but I can't find confirmation anywhere.

I am a big fan of the Mistral class. I think the Mistral class is the right ship at the right time for the French Navy, and would probably fit in very well for India, but few nations outside those two.

After reading this thread, which has led me to do research on the BPE, I am starting to get the same feeling regarding the BPE and Spain, and have already convinced myself the BPE is the better fit for the requirements in the Australian LHD bid.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #55
over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Im not a big fan of things like ESSM being fitted. These should be part of the duty of its escorts.

CIWS and RAM are understandable, ships in small navies need some sort of air defence. But when you start loading anti shipping missiles things are heading the wrong way. Next it will be torpedos, SM-2, etc. Then you have a ship so cluttered that its amphibious ops etc are compromised as is its flexability. Maybe thats not the case, maybe ESSM can easily be accomodated and for minimal cost, but my fear is the RAN is trying to get the BPE to do too much. We know the ADF can get carried away when specing things.

Anti shipping should be handled by its escorts or by its aircraft. This is a ship that should be escorted.

Just some sort of Air defence against missiles/aircraft and decoy.

Im not saying penny pinch, I'm saying instead of putting essm and all the other goodies on it, use that money to go for the fourth destroyer. Or F-35B's. Why shoot missiles when they are flying at you in the air, when you can destroy them on land or at sea before they are fired.
Whilst ESSM has a far greater range than the older NATO Sea Sparrow it still has the same anti missile and anti aircraft role but can engage at medium as well as close range. In the latest Arleigh Burkes a CIWS is not fitted at present as it is felt the ESSM can handle the close in threats. Likewise the RAN Anzacs rely on ESSM and don't ship a CIWS. As provision for ESSM is allowed for in the design of the BPE it should not be a big issue to fit it or at least allow for it.

Has anyone suggested an anti shipping missile for the BPE? If they did I missed it but I agree that anti shipping work is a role for escorts or embarked aviation assets (eg Penguin AShM fired from an embarked helo). The role of the 25mm typhoon or the 12.7mm mini typhoon is primarily to deal with high speed motor boats, etc, though they can also have a role as a last ditch weapon against missiles. The 35mm millenium gun, now under development, can double as a CIWS and anti small craft weapon. For amphibious vessels operating in a littoral environment the threat of small high speed craft is a real danger.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=2177

Cheers
 

VGNTMH

New Member
Landing Craft for LHDs

Does anyone know what landing craft are planned for the RAN LHDs to use from their docks?

Just the current LCMs? Some of the new 30 knot LCUs?

LCACs? :D
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
over at http://www.lhd.tenix.com/ (from Australian LHD thread)

It appears:
-BPE is built to military spec damage control. Which is definately good.
-The ski jump is back on!
-They have a time line for BPE production (only one spanish BPE planned at this stage).

Very interesting.
Interesting indeed. Good damage control is an important issue in a ship designed to carry 1000 troops and so many other valuable assets (helos, vehicles, etc). Also, as mentioned earlier, even without VSTOL aircraft the ski jump improves the ability to cross deck allied aircraft.

Cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Does anyone know what landing craft are planned for the RAN LHDs to use from their docks?

Just the current LCMs? Some of the new 30 knot LCUs?

LCACs? :D
The ADF has a project called: JP 2048 Phase 3 - Amphibious Watercraft Replacement

JP2048 Phase 3 seeks to acquire craft that will replace the existing capability inherent in the RAN’s current LCH and LCVP and the Australian Army’s LCM-8, LPA Watercraft, LARC-V and NLE. The Phase 3 craft will be a key element of the future Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) capability.

The ADAS System will include landing craft that will operate out of a wet dock in the ADAS major ships to facilitate landing of heavy equipment and logistics over the shore (LOTS). Taken together the JP2048 Phase 3 craft will provide a significant lift capability and further enhance the flexibility of the ADAS.
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/adas/jp2048ph3/index.cfm

I guess we will have to wait and see. The LCAC would be nice but only one will fit in the docking well compared with 4 LCMs!

Cheers
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #60
I don't belive the current ones will be used. Dont carry M1A1's?

I belive they might be looking at getting some new ones with the LHD's. The $2 billion set aside should allow for a few nice options. I belive this is one of them.

Didn't the UK remove all missiles from their carriers a while back?
Like I said, provide them with some protection, but keep it simple with a simple objective. If it can all be done with ESSM and few light machine guns then I can't complain. If you start trying to fit, 3 Phalax CIWS, Sea RAM, RB-70, ESSMs, 2x20mm x3,4x 12.7mm its starting to sound like a WWII battleship.
 
Top